Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Animal Testing- yes or no?

MuadDib · 09-23-2003, 11:15 PM

1) Survival of the fittest has not been around since day one. It is no way formulaic to evolution and was an adaptation for Social Darwinism by Herbert Spencer. Most evolutionist do not subscribe to the "red in tooth and claw" view that most people are indoctrinated into and instead view nature as a balancing act were life and death work in concert to maintain a sustainable ecosystem

2) Evolution is not directed. Another common misconception. Just because we have survived and are at the imaginary "top of the food chain" (literally we aren't even at the top of that) doesn't mean we are above other animals, have special rights, or are in anyway unique from all other life.

3) Of course almost any one would likely choose an individual they are close to over an animal, but they would also choose them over another individual they are not close to. Furthermore, even granting a inherent tendency to favor one's own species that doesn't make it right, only habit. Finally, this question/point is flawed specifically because people don't need to eat meat to live and, in the case of testing, we theoretically could test on humans. Without showing either why a human life is worth more you might as well not specify the types of animals at hand and let it stand that it is okay to sacrifice entity X to save entity Y and then draw from a hat 2 animals from all life on the planet.

4) Morality has to become involved. Logic without values is worthless. Example, look to attorneys. People professionally trained in logic and argumentation can make perfectly coherent cases for two opposing things. There has to be something to guide pure logic otherwise it is empty, aimless, and easily counter by an equally empty line of logic.

5) We can eat/test/abuse animals so it is right is not an excuse. The Al Queda obviously could ram a plane into the WTC, that didn't make it okay for them to do it.

09-23-2003, 11:15 PM	#37 (permalink)
MuadDib Psycho	1) Survival of the fittest has not been around since day one. It is no way formulaic to evolution and was an adaptation for Social Darwinism by Herbert Spencer. Most evolutionist do not subscribe to the "red in tooth and claw" view that most people are indoctrinated into and instead view nature as a balancing act were life and death work in concert to maintain a sustainable ecosystem 2) Evolution is not directed. Another common misconception. Just because we have survived and are at the imaginary "top of the food chain" (literally we aren't even at the top of that) doesn't mean we are above other animals, have special rights, or are in anyway unique from all other life. 3) Of course almost any one would likely choose an individual they are close to over an animal, but they would also choose them over another individual they are not close to. Furthermore, even granting a inherent tendency to favor one's own species that doesn't make it right, only habit. Finally, this question/point is flawed specifically because people don't need to eat meat to live and, in the case of testing, we theoretically could test on humans. Without showing either why a human life is worth more you might as well not specify the types of animals at hand and let it stand that it is okay to sacrifice entity X to save entity Y and then draw from a hat 2 animals from all life on the planet. 4) Morality has to become involved. Logic without values is worthless. Example, look to attorneys. People professionally trained in logic and argumentation can make perfectly coherent cases for two opposing things. There has to be something to guide pure logic otherwise it is empty, aimless, and easily counter by an equally empty line of logic. 5) We can eat/test/abuse animals so it is right is not an excuse. The Al Queda obviously could ram a plane into the WTC, that didn't make it okay for them to do it. __________________ "The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751